Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision

[admin]

I wrote this in resposne to the work cited below for a college class.

Walker, J. Samuel, “Historiographical Essay, Recent Literature on Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground,” Diplomatic History 29:2 (April 2005): 311-34.

   This essay on the Historiographical scholarly debate on the motives behind the decision of President Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Japan in order to end World War II was written by J. Samuel Walker. Walker is an “historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission” and “he has published … books on the history of American foreign policy and the history of nuclear energy” [http://uncpress.unc.edu/books/T-7754.html]. In his article, Walker discusses the academic controversy of whether to teach the traditionalist viewpoint, revisionist viewpoint, or middle ground viewpoint of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. The traditionalist viewpoint states that using the bomb was the right thing to do because it saved lives on both sides and hastened the end of the war with a Japanese surrender. If the bomb would have been used, an invasion of Japan would have been necessary prolonging the war and causing more death on both sides. The revisionists promote the idea that the use of the atomic bomb was intended as “atomic diplomacy” as part of the emerging Cold War. The middle ground viewpoint tries to synthesize the two viewpoints. While the use of the atomic bomb did bring about the end of World War II, it was also a useful took in intimidating the Soviet Union.

   The significance of this piece is that it shows us an example of the ongoing Historiographical debates that go on in academia on which version of History to teach. The traditional patriotic way has been to teach the heroic viewpoints that promote American patriotism and national pride. Historical revisionists on the other hand challenge the traditional way of teaching History and wish to replace it with what they view as an objective point of view. In some cases, the traditional viewpoint may be valid but in other cases, it may be necessary to introduce the objective viewpoints as well.

[newman]

I've heard both arguments but who cares?

The japs started it so they got what they deserved. I've no more sympathy for the residents of Hiroshima than those of Dresden.

[Muck DeFuslims]

Too bad the objective viewpoint is mostly malarkey in this case.

The primary consideration in nuking the Japs was to bring their unconditional surrender and an immediate end to the war. Intimidating the Russians might have been a desirable and useful by product of this action but certainly wasn't a primary consideration.

When Truman was notified of the successful test detonation of the first Atomic bomb he alluded to a terrible new weapon at his meeting with Stalin at Potsdam. Truman was surprised when Stalin barely reacted. What Truman didn't know was that a Russian spy had infiltrated the Manhattan Project, witnessed the detonation in New Mexico, and duly reported the development to Moscow.

Stalin was already well aware of America's posession of the first nuclear weapons and their great destructive capability.

[Ultra Requete]

Too bad the objective viewpoint is mostly malarkey in this case.

The primary consideration in nuking the Japs was to bring their unconditional surrender and an immediate end to the war. Intimidating the Russians might have been a desirable and useful by product of this action but certainly wasn't a primary consideration.

When Truman was notified of the successful test detonation of the first Atomic bomb he alluded to a terrible new weapon at his meeting with Stalin at Potsdam. Truman was surprised when Stalin barely reacted. What Truman didn't know was that a Russian spy had infiltrated the Manhattan Project, witnessed the detonation in New Mexico, and duly reported the development to Moscow.

Stalin was already well aware of America's posession of the first nuclear weapons and their great destructive capability.

That's true, but wrong with intimidating Soviets anyway? Why the west must always play nice and fair with all those bastards Who'll eat us alive if only chance was given? Frag the "Moral  high ground" !!!